Did Sklansky say he Could have won a Nobel?

[PukaPlaya]

He said it.

I had to wipe down my TV afterward so I am pretty sure I wasn't hallucinating.

Hillarious!

He is a classic...

No offense to all the worshipers but it was pretty funny. I have all the books and give him enormous credit of course but that was a "little" over the top.

[David Sklansky]

It would be a lot easier to win the Nobel Prize in economics.

At age 13 I believe I was better in math, science, puzzles, coming up with clever shortcuts, and logic, than perhaps half of those who went on to get physics prizes (and most of those who got the economics prize) when they were 13 years old. (At that age I stopped studying.) That fact alone is enough to make the statement that I could have maybe won it if I pursued physics or economics. I believe I did say "maybe" on the show. The statement was meant to contrast with the completely different road I took.

[andyfox]

We had a discussion about this on the psychology forum some time ago. I did an amateur psychological analysis on David which he said was pretty close to the mark (or closer to the mark than I might suppose, or something like that). Perhaps somebody not as lazy as David or I can find the thread.

[andyfox]

"At age 13 I believe I was better in math, science, puzzles, coming up with clever shortcuts, and logic, than perhaps half of those who went on to get physics prizes (and most of those who got the economics prize) when they were 13 years old."

How would one know this?

[eastbay]

When you spend your days in a casino, it's easy to be fooled into thinking you're pretty smart. It's all relative.

I think David has little appreciation for how intellectually trivial the game of poker is compared to any field of physics that can garner a Nobel. Theory of Poker is fully digestible in two days' time. Try that with, say, one of Landau and Lifschitz's volumes. The information density ratio is about 1,000:1.

eastbay

[andyfox]

But wouldn't most of the Nobel physics or economics winners be pretty intelligent people? Intelligence alone probably isn't enough (I would think you need luck, publicity, a good sponsor, acquaintance with past winners, etc.), but without it, those other things probably wouldn't count for much.

I questioned David about how he knew it, but if indeed it is true that, at age 13, he was smarter than many eventual Nobel winners were at that age, wouldn't it be sensible to argue that David too could have won one had his life taken that direction?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be a lot easier to win the Nobel Prize in economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect this is true, but I'm underinformed. My personal feeling is that Literature would be the easiest to get, but it might just be my own personal prejudices.

[ QUOTE ]

At age 13 I believe I was better in math, science, puzzles, coming up with clever shortcuts, and logic, than perhaps half of those who went on to get physics prizes (and most of those who got the economics prize) when they were 13 years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this assertion is both extremely hard to verify and also mostly irrelevant. This could be true, but even if it is, it doesn't address my objection before, at least with regards to physics - it's not just about being sufficiently smart, because there are tons of smart physicists out there. With economics, again, I'm insufficiently informed to make a judgment.


[ QUOTE ]
That fact alone is enough to make the statement that I could have maybe won it if I pursued physics or economics. I believe I did say "maybe" on the show. The statement was meant to contrast with the completely different road I took.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but I think that this is in a similar vein to me saying that if I decided to devote my life to poker tomorrow that I might eventually win the main event in the World Series of Poker. Regardless of how good a poker player I might become, that's far from the only issue.

[andyfox]

"Sklansky's remark is incredibly vain."

Maybe. And, as I alluded to in another post in this thrad, maybe incredibly sad too.

But maybe incredibly accurate too.

How does anyone here who is doubting that he could have won one know that he's not smart enough to have done it?

[MonkeeMan]

I see similarities with a previous Nobel winner.

Einstein: E=mc2
Sklansky: 2+2=4

[PukaPlaya]

[ QUOTE ]
At age 13 I believe I was better in math, science, puzzles, coming up with clever shortcuts, and logic, than perhaps half of those who went on to get physics prizes (and most of those who got the economics prize) when they were 13 years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the age of 13 I was also considered "gifted" and was accepted to a prestigous math and science school in NYC. Shortly thereafter I discovered I also had a talent for music. I immersed myself and had a successful career as a musician until the dot com era came along and I discovered web app development and the large rewards that came with it. Have enjoyed that decision since and now live in Hawaii and play poker as a hobby while dabbling in real estate.

I often look back at the different crossroads in my life and wonder what "could have been" if I had made different decisions and had applied myself to pure science.

I am sure I would have had success in science, Nobel not so sure.

Lotta smart folks and potential Nobel Prize winners in the world these days, particularly with information being shared so much more quickly.

Thank you internet and Two Plus Two.

Congrats on your recent success in tourneys, great to see you getting deep.

Anyway David, So Long & Thanks For All The Fish...